Some good suggestions. The solutions are all quite simple, it basically a
matter of getting everybody on the same page.
I'll run these ideas by the appropriate decision-makers and cross my
fingers.
Thanks again to everyone involved,
Joey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vox-tech-bounces@lists.lugod.org
> [mailto:vox-tech-bounces@lists.lugod.org]On Behalf Of Jeff Newmiller
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:03 AM
> To: lugod's technical discussion forum
> Subject: RE: [vox-tech] Another Round of eth0 Problemas -
> Fixed, now how
> t o prevent?
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Mark K. Kim wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Karalius, Joseph wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > So, if I may redirect the discussion, I'd like to hear
> about how the network
> > > admins on the list organize IP assignments. More
> specifically, is it wise
> > > to put static IPs shuffled within the DHCP licensed host
> range and simply
> > > blacklist the statics from the DHCP server? Why not put
> the static IPs in a
> > > different network, that way the address itself would tell
> you the address
> > > type (static vs. dynamic) and if partitioned out even
> further, printers
> > > could be in one host range on the network ,and servers
> could be in another.
> > > Is it common to just ping addresses to find an unused one
> and then grab it?
> > > Or is this a non-issue and only newbies and hacks are
> affected by it?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier to move the DHCP to a new network
> address than to
> > move the static addresses, since all DHCP's IP addresses
> can be moved from
> > the server? Set the netmask on the new DHCP addresses to
> include the
> > static IP address range, and announce to everyone to set
> any computers
> > with static IP addresses to use the new mask. If anyone
> comes to IT and
> > complains about their computer not being able to access
> certain others,
> > then the IT has identified a rogue static IP address user,
> and can switch
> > them over to DHCP.
>
> I think the case in point contradicts your argument... Joey wasn't at
> fault.
>
> > Really, though, nobody should be using static IP address.
> If they need to
> > act as a server, they can do a MAC-address based DHCP
> resolution to always
> > get the same IP address. To do that, they'd have to get
> someone in the IT
> > to make a list of NICs that want to have static addresses,
> and they'd
> > enter that into the DHCP server somewhere to always give
> them the same IP
> > address. This will centralize all IP assignment to the
> DHCP server and
> > remove all IP address conflict altogether (until someone
> stupidly plugs in
> > a computer and gives it a static IP.)
>
> I agree that in most cases this is true... but there are some
> devices that
> just don't work well with DHCP, so you have to assign them
> statically.
> (That doesn't preclude you from ALSO giving it the same address via a
> MAC-assigned DHCP lease as a bookkeeping measure, but then
> you probably
> wouldn't remember that it was in fact statically assigned.)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> Jeff Newmiller The .....
> ..... Go Live...
> DCN:<jdnewmil@dcn.davis.ca.us> Basics: ##.#.
> ##.#. Live Go...
> Live: OO#.. Dead:
> OO#.. Playing
> Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with
> /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#.
> .OO#. rocks...1k
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> vox-tech mailing list
> vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
>
_______________________________________________
vox-tech mailing list
vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech